What is Digg?108 Comments
- billricardi, on 04/13/2009, -5/+66"AMZ spokesman Drew Herdener tells me 'We recently discovered glitch to sales rank feature. Working 2 correct problem as quickly as possible'. "
Remember kids: If there isn't much of a reaction, it's a 'successful corporate directive'. If you get caught, it's a 'glitch'! - TalahRama, on 04/13/2009, -3/+36All books with straight content should also be marked as adult. Because saying something is "straight" can only refer to their sex lives.
For example, anything in which any male or female talks about loving a person of the opposite sex. - thelastcivilian, on 04/13/2009, -4/+27This is really a ridiculous move, especially considering the selective nature of the books being removed. There doesn't seem to be any real rhyme or reason for their selection - even biographies and romance pulp are on the blacklist...
EXCEPT that those that are "anti-gay" are still listed, so there does seem to be a certain agenda being pushed here. It really boggles the mind that a company would make such a far-reaching move.
And anyway, censorship arguments aside, users should be able to find books they search for - removing listings from search results doesn't really make any business sense. For those books on the blacklist, if you search for even their EXACT TITLES, they won't come up if you search from the Amazon homepage.
I'm holding off on shopping at Amazon for the time being. I've spent $1283.69 spent at Amazon since 2001 and I'm sure others have spent quite a bit more than me. Also, I'm an "Associate" - driving traffic to their website. I know this won't sink their ship, but it's really more of a symbolic gesture.
As far as other symbolic gestures? While we've got the pitchforks out, let's have a Kindle-burning! :P - TalahRama, on 04/13/2009, -1/+20So, all those books teenage girls read about having crushes on boys are adult books?
- pogoman11, on 04/13/2009, -7/+23Gay is about more than sex, it is also about love and attraction, which is a probably the most popular literary theme ever.
- dissolutionman, on 04/13/2009, -4/+18Don't you try to make your dogmatic ***** a liberal-conservative issue.
- headzoo, on 04/13/2009, -1/+13Being straight also defines someone's sexual orientation. So what's your point?
- Rain12913, on 04/13/2009, -3/+15And Haemophilia too?
@DarkerThanBlack: Tell me if I'm wrong, but is this REALLY the logic you're using?: "Despite holding a democratic vote that resulted in the declaration of Homosexuality as a non-pathological variant of human sexuality, the APA of 1973 ACTUALLY believed that Homosexuality was indeed a mental disorder, so it must it must be bad!" Do I really need to go down the list of other mental disorders that the 1973 APA maintained the existence of that are now considered blatantly incorrect and outdated? I hope you can just do the research on your own, because that would truly be a tiring task.
The study of psychopathology is a relatively new science, and the rapid rate at which we acquire new knowledge about the brain means that our understanding of this area also changes rapidly and will continue to do so for many years to come (we don't even know the specific function of many brain regions, how do you expect us to have a perfect understanding of how they can systemically malfunction?). A whole host of beliefs held by the majority of the Psychological/Psychiatric academic and clinical community in 1973 have since been disproved. The fact that the vast majority of APA members and Psychologists in 2009 believe that Homosexuality is not a mental disorder, however, trumps your assertion that their 1973 counterparts believed differently (though even the claim that they did is itself likely incorrect). You guys really need to come up with a better argument than this, it's getting tired.
Btw, my favorite line from your post was this one: "homosexuality doesn't really exist - it's a mental disorder". Thanks for that, I'll definitely be using it for laughs in the future. - Raian, on 04/13/2009, -3/+14It doesn't matter how, or if you label your sexuality-- or even if you buy into this conceptualization of sexuality, or sexual activity. The real danger here is Amazon's control over the dissemination of information.
Granted some Americans have a sociopathic outlook when it comes to the mere thought of sex and sexually charged writing... and in order for Amazon to appeal to this lowest common denominator and to maximize profits-- in a very hobbesian fashion, protect these sensitive consumers from content which may disturb them, in order to ensure as much money rolling in as possible.
The solution is for Amazon to make a pledge to the effect they will remain a neutral provider of information, which strives to provide neutral results to their consumers... only filtering results when, and as requested. - zelgadisx, on 04/13/2009, -14/+23That's gay.
- hushpuppy20, on 04/13/2009, -0/+9Yes, it is referring to more than their sex life. I have shelves full of good to terrible books about gay life that have little or nothing to do with sex.
- hushpuppy20, on 04/13/2009, -3/+12This IS an issue for many people out there. Just because you are not one of them doesn't mean that people who ARE affected shouldn't call Amazon out.
What if Amazon decided to muck with every book with "adult" sex in it, gay or straight? Can you see how that might be annoying? - pogoman11, on 04/13/2009, -5/+12This much disinformation just hurt my brain.
- hushpuppy20, on 04/13/2009, -0/+7Sonoframbo, you are just a little ball of sunshine! (*HUGS*)
- Orlong, on 04/13/2009, -4/+10What bugs me even more is the "reviews" for these kind of books arent reviews at all but just people's opinions on the subject of the book. They should be removing all reviews that are just supporting one side or the other of the topic of the book. People want to actually read real reviews of the book itself not read someones opinion of the topic.
- Gwhen, on 04/13/2009, -1/+7If there isn't an Amazon agenda, then I wonder why a search on 'homosexuality" brings up this? http://blog.seattlepi.com/amazon/library/homosexua ...
- RubyTuesday, on 04/13/2009, -0/+6There have been a number of changes in psychology over the years. The majority of psychologists no longer make use of lobotomization, bleeding, ice baths or prolonged isolation. This is because, like many bodies of knowledge, psychology is an evolving, changing, growing field that attempts to improve on past thoughts and practices. You see smart people don't think that they know it all, they leave room for growth and are willing to change when presented with new and better information.
- pikelet, on 04/13/2009, -5/+10Wow. I've not heard anything that shocking in a long time. Congratulations, I just stared at my monitor with my jaw open in disbelief.
- hushpuppy20, on 04/13/2009, -0/+5"Let the hyperboles begin!" shouts the man on his giant soap box.
- lydecker, on 04/13/2009, -0/+5Anyway, couples being physically intimate does not negate that relationships can be based off love and attraction. The vast majority of relationships that work are based on love and attraction, and the vast majority of relationships have been intimate before the marriage commitment.
- stoitofardo, on 04/13/2009, -1/+6Couldn't have said it better myself.
- Rain12913, on 04/13/2009, -0/+4Apparently what I said in that post is not obvious to the person I was responding to who said this: "Are you also saying the wisdom of the Armed Forces of the United States of America is wrong also?"
I also did not say that the APA is the only credible source on this matter, there are many other credible sources as well. NARTH is not one of them, however. - dty2010, on 04/13/2009, -1/+5How exactly is the Armed Force's opinion more credible than the APA's?
- Rain12913, on 04/13/2009, -0/+4You are correct in saying that the APA can be wrong. Everybody can be wrong. Some people are more prone to being wrong than others, however. Luckily, we've developed a way to ensure that we are wrong as little as possible. It's called the scientific method, and it's been around for quite a while now.
The APA applies the scientific method to all of its beliefs in a methodological way that is both transparent and replicable. The Army does not. The public policies of the Army are not based on findings that have been reached through careful adherence to the scientific method. The APA's public policies are. The Army is not in any way, shape, or form related to the pursuit of determining what kinds of human behavior are normal and what kinds of human behavior aren't. The APA deals in this realm exclusively. Do you really not understand why the vast majority of educated people go with the APA's stance on homosexuality and not the Army's? - Rain12913, on 04/13/2009, -0/+3I stand corrected. I have a new question though: Can I discriminate against people who like ***** movies?
- Rain12913, on 04/13/2009, -1/+4People aren't going to take you seriously when you so resemble the little children that we heard disparaging Homosexuality throughout our elementary school years. Are you really incapable of participating in debate regarding Homosexuality without calling me gay? Don't you think that's kind of juvenile? For the record, I'm not a Homosexual. If I was, you can be sure that I'd be tearing your faulty reasoning down even harder.
Now, to address your request. Perhaps you're unsure of what a mental disorder is. Wikipedia gives a pretty fair definition: "A mental disorder is a psychological or behavioral pattern that occurs in an individual and is thought to cause distress or disability that is not expected as part of normal development or culture". Take note of the last part, for it is quite an important aspect of the definition. To argue that sociocultural concerns should not be factored into the classifications of psychopathology is to deny the very purpose of this pursuit. In a world of antisocial narcissists, the man who attempts to shape his surroundings with compassion has a mental disorder. Let me give you an example of how this thinking is applied in the DSM-IV. Throughout the manual, there are several disorders with criteria similar to the following one (which is diagnostic criterion B of Dissociative Trance Disorder): "The behavior is not accepted as a normal part of a collective cultural or religious practice". This distinction is quite important, as it demonstrates the notion that the classification of a behavior as pathological is dependent upon how it the behavior is viewed by the society in which it is performed. In certain societies, for example, it is considered completely normal, and even expected, to display symptoms that would earn you the diagnosis of Dissociative Trance Disorder in most parts of the western world. The presence of these behaviors in a society where they are accepted as culturally normal would NOT, however, warrant a diagnosis of this disorder by a mental health clinician because the behaviors would be consistent with what is “expected as part of the normal development of culture”. In order to be considered a mental disorder, a set of behaviors must be BOTH distressing/disabling AND outside the range of normal behavior.
With that said, it’s easy to understand why Homosexuality is no longer listed as a mental disorder in the DSM. We now live in an age where our understanding of science has allowed us to realize that Homosexuality is simply a variant of sexual behavior that is present in approximately 10% of the population. There are other non-pathological variants of normal sexuality too, many of them with an even lower rate of prevalence. For example, I’m an ass guy. I like attractive women, but I especially like attractive women who have nice asses. Other men are tit guys. These are both variants on sexuality that fall within the normal range, just like Homosexuality does. Pedophilia, on the other hand, is a variant on sexual behavior that easily fulfills ALL of the criteria for consideration as a mental disorder due to the fact that 1. the VAST majority of people in our society consider it to be well outside the normal range of behavior and 2. because empirical data CLEARLY supports the fact that Pedophilic behavior is drastically harmful to both those who perform it and to those who are the target of such behavior.
Every instance of an adult having sexual relations with a prepubescent child is a situation that causes harm to an individual. Pedophiles could not function normally within our society because the performance of the very behaviors that earn them their diagnosis is innately harmful to other human beings. The performance of Homosexual behaviors is not innately harmful, however. I don’t think even you would argue that two lesbians having consensual sex are harming each other. The only innate harm in Homosexual behavior is that those who perform it exclusively will not reproduce. Playing World of Warcraft achieves this same effect, and I don’t think you’d consider it to be innately harmful or psychopathological either. The fact that Homosexuality is 1. considered to be a normal variation of behavior by approximately 50% of our society, and by a far higher percentage of those who are members of the psychological and medical communities and 2. that it is not innately harmful or distressing to those who experience it means that it is not a mental disorder. Pedophilia is. Do you still not understand why one hasn’t been in the DSM for over 30 years while the other is considered to be one of the more serious mental disorders? - lydecker, on 04/13/2009, -0/+3Their mission statement is to prove that homosexuality is curable and treatable, which makes their information skewed. They do no studies, they only twist other studies against the facts and the work of the authors of those studies. That proof is all over their site. They are a political organization, not a scientific organization.
- inactive, on 04/13/2009, -0/+3sonoframbo, you're setting an impossibly high standard. Anyway, you just said "until they commit to each other," not until they get married.
- Rain12913, on 04/13/2009, -0/+3Cool, I hope that means it's okay to discriminate against anyone who has a first order relative named "Frambo". If not, I plan to continue to do so anyway: buried.
- abstracthuman, on 04/13/2009, -0/+3lol "This user is no longer here"
- cfuse, on 04/13/2009, -0/+3Judging by the massive back-pedalling Amazon just did I think they disagree with you. Whether Amazon is prepared to treat me equally or not, they are still aware that I use exactly the same money their queer hating customers do.
- RubyTuesday, on 04/13/2009, -1/+4Homosexuality is not a disorder because it does not meat the standards for a disorder. Disorders have to cause suffering.
"In general, however, a mental disorder has been characterized as a clinically significant behavioral or psychological pattern that occurs in an individual and is usually associated with distress, disability or increased risk of suffering."
Homosexuality only causes suffering when some ***** like you is too concerned with who someone else is sleeping with. Whereas pedophilia causes a great deal of suffering and creates a victim. - lydecker, on 04/13/2009, -0/+3"If homosexuality was removed from the DSM, why haven't all the other sexual deviance?"
Because there's no evidence that sexual orientation is a mental disorder, while other non-norms can be linked to mental factors. Half of the population is sexually attracted to males, half of the population is sexually attracted to females. Just because they're in a different sex body doesn't mean their whole being matches up 100% with others of their sex.
"As long as you're not trying to force ***** movies on me, we're good."
And as long as nobody is trying to force any sexual orientation on you, you're good with what everyone is currently doing? Good.
"The problem is you seem to want to legitimize your behavior by making it state sponsored and recognized."
Like straight behaviors are?
"In essence, you wish to make it a public and legal issue."
Like straight marriages are?
"I will not stand for that."
So are you for banning straight marriage as well, since it fits perfectly into your argument? Or are you bigoted when it comes to different sexual orientations? - Rain12913, on 04/13/2009, -0/+3“If I called you gay and you really were gay, why should it matter? I'm not being offensive. If you aren't gay, but you support the homosexual cause, why should you get all indignant if I mistakenly call you gay.”
I wasn’t indignant, I was simply pointing out that you either 1. falsely assumed I was gay or 2. called me gay as an insult with the intention of provoking me. I believed that the latter possibility was the more likely one, thus my criticism of your post as juvenile and your logic as resembling a school child’s.
“I believe I'm more certain of what a mental disorder is. Perhaps even more so than you. Just because you're a psychologist researcher, as am I, doesn't mean you're any more qualified than I am.”
So you know more about mental disorders than the APA? Maybe you should propose a new definition for ‘mental disorder’ and submit it to the APA and major dictionaries. I’m sure they would all realize the superiority of your understanding of the term and immediately adopt it. You’ll be famous!
Also, the grossly incorrect syntax used in that sentence confirms that you are indeed not a “psychologist researcher”. You wouldn’t receive a high enough score on the GRE to be accepted into any kind of graduate program. I’d be surprised if you could even successfully finish a Bachelor’s degree with such a poor grasp of the English language. Don’t kid yourself.
”Some people are turned on by dead people. How is that harmful to the dead person. What's your point?”
It’s not harmful to the dead person. Dead people cannot be harmed. When did I say that a mental disorder has to inflict harm upon people, other than those who suffer from it of course, in order to be considered a mental disorder? I did not. I was simply explaining to you that Homosexuality is not innately harmful, whereas Pedophilia is. Necrophilia is not innately harmful, but it is a mental disorder for other reasons.
”1. Vast majority of people once considered homosexuality outside the normal range of behavior. It's only been popularized because of propaganda and social pressure.”
Key word: ONCE. Whether a behavior is considered outside of the normal range of behavior is based upon a society’s current stance towards the behavior, not upon the society’s stance towards the behavior from 50 years ago. The vast majority of people in our society once considered slavery to be justified and moral, but you’d certainly get quite a difference response from a poll given to modern-day Americans.
“2. So a mature12 year old who wants to practice sex should be denied their right to sexual freedom simply because of their age? Is that what you're saying?”
“I'm not talking prepubescent per se. It could be an adolescent too and considered pedophilia. Eve if it were prepubescent some cultures allow for young male boys to perform fellatio on male adults for it is in their culture that such an action will enhance their strength.”
First of all, a Pedophile is an adult who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children. An adult who is sexually attracted to a 14 year old girl who has already reached puberty CANNOT be diagnosed with Pedophilia. Do not mistake the legal concept of consent with the psychiatric term Pedophilia, these are two very different things. You claim to be a “psychologist researcher” yet you don’t even know one of the basic criteria for a major mental disorder. You surely have a copy of the DSM-IV in your office, it’s probably right next to that stack of Psychology journals your research has been published in. Reach for it and check out the section called “Paraphilias”.
Second of all, I made it rather clear in my last post that for a behavior to be considered pathological it must fall outside the range of behavior that is considered normal in the society in which it is performed. As you’ve stated, it is not outside the range of normality in some societies for young boys to perform fellatio on adults. In these societies, this behavior would not be considered symptomatic of Pedophilia. Again, the fact that you don’t already know this is a pretty good indication that you’re not a “psychologist researcher”.
“Harmful (pedophilic behavior) because of "legal and moral" doctrines.”
No, harmful because it inflicts psychological damage onto the children who are subjected to it. There is well-documented, scientific evidence that prepubescent children who participate in sexual behavior with adults, with or without consent, are very likely to be psychologically traumatized. There is no evidence, however, that homosexual adults who have sex with each other are incurring psychological damage unto one another.
“Maybe not, but they are doing something immoral and they are harming society in wanting to legitimize that practice through the state.”
Morality is not something that is taken into consideration in the taxonomy of psychiatric disorders. I feel like I need a hotkey that says “you are definitely not a psychologist”.
”LOL. What a rudimentary analogy. You're basically saying that anything that's not related to sex is not related to reproduction. What exactly was the point of that?”
That was a joke that apparently went right over your head. Relax.
“Fine. If necrophilia became that high so be it. I don't understand why you can't just keep it as an act behind closed doors.”
Now I’m beginning to question whether you’re intoxicated as you write this stuff. Wait…are you saying that it’s cool to fornicate dead bodies as long as it’s behind closed doors? Good god man… - doremon313, on 04/14/2009, -0/+2even biography and books completely unrelated to sex but written by a gay author?
- hmunkey, on 04/14/2009, -0/+2Uh, a letter insn't earth-shattering. It will however, tell Amazon that what they are doing is wrong, in turn rectifying the situation.
No one is out there killing Amazon empoyees - they're letting them know through words. - FreeDeb, on 04/13/2009, -0/+2Anything could be removed or buried under the banner of "upsetting" or "controversial" by Amazon. To me this highlights why we as consumers should do our best to patronize a variety of booksellers so as to not give any one of them a large enough share of the market to be able to effectively censor books.
- lydecker, on 04/13/2009, -0/+2"So a 14 year old girl or guy that wants to hook up with a 20 year old because their biology compels them towards experimenting with sex causes great a deal of suffering? How is that exactly?"
Pedophilia doesn't work this way. Pedophilia is defined as a person's sexual attraction to prepubescent individuals (those who haven't gone through puberty and wouldn't have sexual attractions). So when you engage in sex with someone who's not sexually mature, that can harm the sexually immature.
If you think that heterosexuality and homosexuality are just like necrophilia, bestiality, and pedophilia, you've got a lot to do to realize those philias are not typical attractions... while attractions to men and women are very typical.
And if you want anything with heterosexual themes to be adult, go for it. But good luck to make any book, television show, or movie with a couple in it or people dating rated adult. - al3efroman, on 04/13/2009, -0/+2As you may be unaware of how digg works, I'll sum it up for you. If enough people digg it up, it *is* considered news here.
- al3efroman, on 04/13/2009, -0/+2No, your comment is irrelevant to the topic at hand. Nobody said they were not available for sale. You're just changing the subject.
- al3efroman, on 04/13/2009, -0/+2citation?
- sajorojas, on 04/13/2009, -0/+2Talk about meat.
Meat. - RubyTuesday, on 04/13/2009, -0/+2sonoframbo - What you refer to as changing "the truth", we refer to as learning.
- ibeetle, on 04/13/2009, -0/+2Especially when it is those same religious fundamentalists that want to burn books.
Amazon stop selling those Godless homosexual books. Oh, and by the way could we buy a couple of cases for our weekly book burning. - hmunkey, on 04/14/2009, -0/+1Of course. And being black is a birth defect too, amirite?
- madeingermany, on 04/13/2009, -1/+2http://blog.seattlepi.com/amazon/archives/166329.a ... says it was a "cataloging error" and "it impacted 57,310 books in a number of broad categories such as Health, Mind & Body, Reproductive & Sexual Medicine, and Erotica. This problem impacted books not just in the United States but globally. It affected not just sales rank but also had the effect of removing the books from Amazon's main product search."
Now we can all get back to some real issues. - mzieg, on 04/14/2009, -0/+1Yeah! And how come Digg.com allows all these comments that aren't even about the article, but go off on some tangent that the poster wants to gripe about? ...damnit.
- pseudononymist, on 04/13/2009, -3/+4Can someone define what gay lit. means? Does any work written by a gay author fall in this category? Or any work that has gay characters? Or is it only gay lit. if it is exploring the issues of and surrounding homosexuality? I'm going the guess the latter.
If it is the latter, however, it becomes dangerously easy to conclude that all gay lit is about sexuality, and not just sexuality, but abnormal sexuality. Whether or not gay lit. is all about sexuality isn't the problem, the problem is that it has to have the gay lit label at all. There is not really such a thing as "straight" literature, and also since most people are straight, has never needed its own genre. I assume if such a genre existed it would have to be subject to the same adult classification, but since it does not, literature that might fall under this category is spared from Amazon's ban hammer. Not exactly fair, is it? Imagine if they decided to call African-American literature adult because it dealt with racism? -
Show 51 - 100 of 119 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 